Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

1. In a murder trial, the prosecution relies on the accused's absconding after the crime, along with last seen evidence and recovery of the murder weapon. The accused argues that absconding alone cannot prove guilt. Which of the following propositions is correct?A) Absconding is conclusive proof of guilt under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, and no further corroboration is required. B) Absconding is irrelevant unless the accused confesses to the crime during interrogation. C) Absconding is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act but must be corroborated by other evidence to establish guilt. D) Absconding is admissible only if the accused fails to explain it during trial, regardless of other evidence.Correct Answer: CCHETAN VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 657Explanation: The Supreme Court recently observed that while mere absconding after the commission of a crime does not by itself establish guilt, it is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, as it reflects the conduct of the accused and may indicate a guilty mind.Mere Absconding Not Proof Of Guilt, But Relevant Conduct Under S.8 Evidence Act : Supreme Court2. In Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. v. Mahaveer Lunia & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 630, the Supreme Court reiterated the legal position on agreements to sell. Which of the following statements is correct as per the judgment?A) An unregistered agreement to sell, if coupled with possession, creates a valid title in favor of the purchaser. B) An agreement to sell confers immediate ownership rights on the purchaser, even without a registered sale deed. C) An agreement to sell does not transfer any title or ownership unless followed by a suit for specific performance and a registered sale deed. D) A Power of Attorney executed along with an agreement to sell is sufficient to convey title without registration.Correct Answer: CExplanation: The Supreme Court recently reiterated that in the absence of a suit for specific performance of a contract, an agreement to sell cannot be relied upon for claiming ownership or title over the property.Agreement To Sell Not Conveyance, Can't Give Any Right In Property Without Suit For Specific Performance : Supreme Court3. If an accused threatens a shopkeeper with a knife to pay ₹10,000 monthly but the shopkeeper refuses and files a complaint before any payment is made, can the accused be convicted under Section 387 IPC?A) No, because the shopkeeper did not suffer any loss. B) Yes, since the threat itself constitutes the offence. C) No, unless the accused physically assaults the victim. D) Yes, but only if the threat was made in public.Correct Answer: BM/S. BALAJI TRADERS VERSUS THE STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 682Explanation: The Supreme Court recently observed that the offence under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code doesn't require actual delivery of property; instead, putting a person in fear of death/grievous hurt for the purpose of extortion is sufficient.S.387 IPC |Actual Property Delivery Not Required; Offence Committed When Person Put In Fear Of Death/Grievous Injury : Supreme Court4. A complainant files a Section 498A IPC case (3-year limitation) on the last day of limitation. The Magistrate takes cognizance two years later due to backlog. Is the prosecution time-barred?A) Yes, because cognizance was taken beyond the limitation period. B) No, since the complaint was filed within limitation. C) Yes, unless the court condones the delay under Section 473 CrPC. D) No, but only if the accused consents to the delay.Correct Answer: BGhanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.Explanation: The Supreme Court reiterated that the relevant date for computing the limitation period under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the date of filing of the complaint or the institution of prosecution, not the date when the Magistrate takes cognizance.For Limitation Under S.468 CrPC, Date Of Filing Complaint Is Relevant & Not Date Of Taking Cognizance : Supreme Court5. In Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust v. UPSIDC (2025), the Supreme Court laid down the essential elements of a valid legal notice. Which of the following statements is incorrect as per the judgment?A) A legal notice must be explicitly labeled as "legal notice" to be valid. B) The notice must clearly convey the facts of default and impending legal consequences. C) Reference to prior communications between parties can satisfy the requirement of factual clarity. D) The notice must unambiguously express the sender's intent to initiate legal action.Correct Answer: AExplanation: The Supreme Court outlined the essential components of a valid legal notice, ruling that a notice does not necessarily have to be explicitly labeled as "legal" to be considered valid. The court held that if a communication sent to the recipient (noticee) effectively conveys the details of the default, potential consequences, and the sender's intent, it will qualify as a legal notice. ...

Important MCQs Based On Latest Supreme Court Judgments For Law Examinations

Yash Mittal

Tags